SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Bail Denied in Rape Case: RJ HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 The Rajasthan High Court denied Godman Asaram Bapu's motion to suspend sentences in a case involving the sexual assault of a minor [Asharam @ Ashumal v. State of Rajasthan].

Justices Vinit Kumar Mathur and Sandeep Mehta were hearing the third application filed by Bapu after he was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for sexually assaulting a minor and sentenced to life in prison.

The Jodhpur bench of the High Court ruled that the appellant did not merit bail based on the nature and severity of the allegations, as well as the fact that the appeal itself was ready for hearing.

Asaram filed the petition on the grounds that he was an 83-year-old elderly man suffering from multiple ailments.

He stated that he had been incarcerated for nine years and seven months, and therefore deserved bail.

It was also stated that it was evident from a cursory reading of the victim's statement that he was not guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted.

The court, however, did not find sufficient evidence to grant the application.

2013 saw the arrest of Asaram Bapu on charges of raping a minor girl. The alleged offence occurred in the Manai village of Jodhpur in August 2013.

On August 20, 2013, a FIR was initially registered against him. In accordance with the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act), and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act, he was arrested at midnight on August 31, 2013.

According to the chargeseet submitted in November 2013, Asaram and the other accused were indicted for various violations of the Indian Penal Code, the Juvenile Justice Act, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, including trafficking, rape, outraging a woman's modesty, wrongful confinement, and criminal intimidation.

Following Asaram's arrest, two women from Surat filed a complaint alleging they were raped between 2002 and 2005 by Asaram and his son.

The felony trial for the alleged rape in Jodhpur began in 2014 and lasted four years. In the course of the trial, nine witnesses were attacked, and three were murdered.

The applicant was represented by Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, Advocates Rajesh Inamdar and RS Saluja, and the respondent was represented by AAG Anil Joshi, Public Prosecutor RR Chhaperwal, and Advocate PC Solanka.

D.D:07-07-2022

Asharam @ Ashumal versus. State of Rajasthan 

Latest Legal News